There are disputes over territory in almost every region of the world, sometimes leading to escalations and violence between States and threatening international peace and security. International law requires States to refrain from the threat or use of force and to attempt to settle their disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered.

In June 2018 the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) has completed a project on the legal significance of certain acts involving the use of force in relation to territorial disputes, especially when altering the status quo in disputed territories, continental or island.

The project report provides a comprehensive analysis of the rules regulating the threat or use of force between States in international law and examines how these rules operate specifically in the context of territorial disputes. The report analyses a wide range of territorial disputes to clarify the legal obligations binding upon States involved in such disputes and the consequences flowing from a breach of these obligations.

Elena Katselli Proukaki, The Right Not to Be Displaced by Armed Conflict under International Law

Elena Katselli Proukaki, The Right to Return Home and the Right to Property Restitution under International Law

Vassilis Tzevelekos, Reparation of the Rights to Property and Home of Displaced Persons Arising from Armed Conflict under the European Convention on Human Rights: Falling Short of the Exigencies of International Law and the Humanistic Purpose of Human Rights?

Eleni Meleagrou & Costas Paraskeva, The Right to Respect of Home and Enjoyment of Property for Cypriot IDPS: The Developing Jurisprudence of the EctHR

Nicolás Carrillo-Santarelli, Inter-American and Colombian Developments and Contributions on the Protection of Persecuted Internally Displaced Persons

The Art-Law Centre of the University of Geneva has issued a call for papers for the third All Art and Cultural Heritage Law conference, to be held November 10, 2018, at the University of Geneva. The theme is: "Works of art qualified as 'national treasures': limits to private property and export controls." The deadline is July 23, 2018. The call is here.

Kathleen Claussen (Univ. of Miami - Law) has posted Separation of Trade Law Powers (Yale Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

The first commercial treaty concluded by the United States began as a diary entry by John Adams. Nearly two and a half centuries later, the United States and international trade law have come a long way, but the uniqueness of trade lawmaking persists. Then, as now and in the future, U.S. trade law has been and will be heavily influenced by the balance of power between Congress and the Executive. This Article argues that the carefully choreographed procedure for negotiating free trade agreements has contributed to a type of path dependence with respect to the text of those agreements to the detriment of U.S. interests. The recent failure of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement demonstrates this point: much of the agreement language copied prior agreements that were already subject to considerable criticism. Because that language tracked congressionally prescribed negotiating objectives, negotiators felt obliged to recycle it. This single modelling, driven by the bi-branch shared-power construct unique to trade, is under challenge on the eve of the NAFTA 2.0. While standardized language may have utility in certain spheres of international contract, the efficiency gains in international trade agreements do not outweigh an interest to reconsider text and standards where possible. This Article seeks to explain through traditional international relations theories the default modelling that occurs in the design of trade law instruments and proposes an under-explored explanation for further study, one that is contrary to the consensus on U.S. foreign relations law more generally: when it comes to trade agreements, Congress has assumed a role in which it may be considered to act as principal and the Executive acts as its agent.

Sunday, July 1, 2018

Tomorrow, July 2, 2018, Queen's University Belfast School of Law will host a workshop on "Time(s) and Temporality of International Human Rights Law." The program is here. Here's the idea:

2018 marks the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the seminal document which founded the international human rights law regime. Today’s context for rights, however, is markedly different. International human rights face increasing critique as a form of legal protection and language of emancipation. At this historic juncture, this workshop offers opportunity to take stock of this area of law and ask how critical engagement with ideas of temporality may lead to creative and innovative interventions in the present period.
To this end, the workshop poses a number of questions: How can we think about the past, present and future of international human rights law? How can we understand and make visible the diverse temporalities that exist within this area of law? How do such temporalities differ from and relate to other temporalities, such as those of state and the global economy? Do the latter marginalise human rights internationally? Can alternative ways of understanding the connection between past, present and future offer possibilities for international human rights law to be thought anew?